↓ Skip to main content

How do people with mood and anxiety disorders perceive and interpret the Drinking Motives Questionnaire? A think-aloud study in a clinical setting

Overview of attention for article published in Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How do people with mood and anxiety disorders perceive and interpret the Drinking Motives Questionnaire? A think-aloud study in a clinical setting
Published in
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13722-018-0109-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Nehlin, Margareta Wennberg, Caisa Öster

Abstract

Research has identified drinking motives as the final common pathway to alcohol use, and associations between specific drinking motives and drinking patterns have consistently been demonstrated. Data on drinking motives can be used for research, in the planning of prevention strategies and for treatment purposes. The Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (DMQ-R) has become the most used measure of drinking motives. So far, the questionnaire has not been investigated with qualitative methods. The aim of this study was to investigate acceptability, accuracy and usability of the DMQ-R among persons receiving outpatient psychiatric care by studying how responders perceive and interpret the questionnaire. A cognitive interviewing technique, the think-aloud method, was used to collect data from 16 non-alcohol dependent patients seeking outpatient psychiatric care (12 women, 4 men). To analyse data, Qualitative Content Analysis was applied in which themes were formed from data only and not from predetermined areas of interest. Overall, acceptability of the DMQ-R was high although answers were sometimes given with low accuracy. Responders pointed out that they perceived the questionnaire as non-confrontational and exhaustive. Further, the DMQ-R seemed to launch processes of self-reflection. Taken together, the results suggest a support for the use of DMQ-R also in the group of psychiatric outpatients. Still, when interpreting the DMQ-R, a certain insecurity of the exactness of answers should be considered. The graphic design should be particularly clear in this group of patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 25%
Psychology 3 19%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Design 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,721,995
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#172
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,868
of 351,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction Science & Clinical Practice
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.